I have come within an inch of cancelling the Scottish Review because of Kenneth Roy’s blatant disrespect for the president of the United States. Does he realise President Obama is also head of state?
Would he publically display such criticism of the Queen of England? Would an American citizen do so? Is it because President Obama happens to be a man of colour? People in this country are free to criticise the president in this election year or any other year for his policies. I am astonished that such personal criticism would be put on the internet by a responsible citizen of Scotland, of all places.
President Obama is the most intelligent, literate, and articulate leader the United States has had since Franklin Roosevelt and before him Abraham Lincoln. Roy should reserve his personal attacks on politicians for those within his own country. We have quite enough bigots attacking our president in this country. Fortunately, he remains a brilliant and steadfast leader in the face of all slander.
I saw a survey elsewhere this morning that found 90% of Europeans support President Obama. That is an astonishing number. Would Kenneth Roy really prefer the other candidate? If not, this is not the time and Scotland is certainly not the place to be demeaning President Obama for his rhetoric of all things!
William Halloran
Emeritus professor of English and dean, Fort Myers, Florida
Kenneth Roy replies: How revealing that I am not allowed to criticise the president of the United States (for whom I would have voted) without inviting a charge of racism.
Kenneth Roy is being uncharitable in condemning President Obama for his use of the adjective ‘major’ to describe the United States east coast hurricane’s effects. Strictly speaking, major should be used to differentiate something from a minor one, but common usage allows its use to emphasise the magnitude of an event in the eyes of the individual describing it.
Think how often our own prime minister irritates us by the use of ‘incredible’ or ‘incredibly’ to describe events or matters that are far from unbelievable. Adjectives and adverbs are widely misused for emphasis, a practice not unknown to journalists.
Finally, Obama knows something else that must influence his reaction, something that he probably feels uneasy about mentioning. Warming oceans provide the energy for hurricanes and the water vapour in the air for rainstorms. The hurricane season has lengthened and the increase in violent storms in the North Atlantic and on the eastern seaboard of the US has been dramatic over the past decades. Many of the world’s great cities, London included, are very vulnerable to storms and tidal surges. He sees a glimpse of a future that is becoming more likely as each year passes and the evidence of man-made climate change increases. And he knows how resistant Americans are to accept the advice of their scientists.
I agree, a disaster is a disaster and needs no qualification, unless you are a journalist and only count its importance by the number of deaths. But I sympathise with the president who is faced with one such as this; for the affected individual, a disaster’s a disaster for a’ that.
Anthony Seaton
Kenneth Roy replies: I did not imply that it was of little consequence. But nor was it a major disaster – except from the perspective of western man (and his media).
The 71 who died (21 still missing) in the Caribbean before Hurricane Sandy struck the United States have barely been mentioned.
Maybe they were just falling leaves.
Peter Macaulay
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
website design by Big Blue Dogwebsite development by NSD Web